Revenue forecast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: invoiced and skipped periods are not included, paused schedules are shown separately, and plan limits are free vs. Pro. It does not mention response shape or update timing, but for a read-only forecast tool these are less critical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences deliver highly relevant information with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional constraints are packed into the following sentences without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key usage context well: what is forecast, what is excluded, how paused schedules are handled, and plan limits. A more explicit note about response shape would make it stronger, but the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully covers the only parameter with name, type, min, max, and default. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating plan-specific limits (Free: 3 months; Pro: up to 120) and clarifying that the horizon is measured in months, which helps an agent pick a meaningful value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource:

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to obtain a revenue forecast from active schedules, with a timeframe controlled by the plan limit. It does not explicitly name or compare alternatives among the sibling tools, but no sibling serves the same forecasting purpose, so the lack of explicit exclusions is not a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.